JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the daughter-in-law of respondent No.3, aged

82 years. Orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal Ext.P7 dated 01.10.2020 and Ext.P9 13.12.2021 are under challenge.

2. The case has a checkered history of litigation.

Petitioner was married to Ramachandran and unfortunately became widow on 22.02.2015. Respondent No.3 in a family partition amongst her siblings, got 50.12 cents of land from her father. Out of the wedlock respondent No.3 has two sons and one daughter. One son since deceased and another son and daughter are respondent Nos.4 and 5. She entered into a family settlement whereby 50 cents of land was given to her son, the husband of the petitioner. After four years of the execution of the settlement, respondent No.3 cancelled the settlement and also instituted a suit bearing No.464/2001 for injunction. Husband of the petitioner also instituted a suit bearing No.465/2001. During the pendency of the suits, a compromise dated 09.03.2005 Ext.P1 was arrived at wherein it was held that 10 cents of land was given to the mother as life in state and after death would go to Ramachandran and Babu-respondent No.4 will not trespass or cause interference. Petitioner along with her husband moved to Malabar, north area of Kerala, as she obtained employment as a teacher. This happened in the year 2005. In the year 2011, respondent No.4-Babu trespassed into the property and started residing. This gave a cause of action to the petitioner to institute execution petition 58/2010. Simultaneously, respondent No.3-senior citizen also instituted a suit challenging the compromise decree as null and void. Trial Court vide order dated 13.07.2011 allowed the execution petition and directed Babu to vacate the premises and immediately thereafter, on 23.07.2013 vide Ext.P3 dismissed the Civil Suit with cost. It is pertinent to mention here that during the interregnum, respondent No.3-senior citizen instituted a Criminal complaint bearing No.596/2008 in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I alleging physical assault. The aforementioned complaint vide order dated 23.08.2017 Ext.P4 was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the Civil Suit No.523 of 2010 challenging the compromise decree, an Appeal A.S.No.82/2013 was preferred, which was also dismissed on 08.01.2021.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that 50 cents of land included all constructions and an empty area. For raising a construction in the empty area, a loan from the bank by mortgaging the entire property as it stood in her husband’s name and now in her name, was obtained. construction suitable to her requirement as she is working as a teacher in a private school was raised. All these litigation reflects that the respondent No.3 had been acting at the hands of her other children, particularly the son Babu respondent No.4, who is having an evil eye on the house as evident from the attempt of trespass and an order of the executing court. Respondent No.3 never attempted to reside in the house though she instituted a complaint under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha vide order dated 08.01.2009 dismissed the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act as the petitioner arrayed as the respondent had handed over the key of the vacant house to respondent No.3. Despite that she is not living in that house but with her brother or sometimes, at earlier point of time, in an old-age home.

4. On 11.05.2020, petition under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act bearing No.53/2020 was preferred claiming a sum of Rs.25,000/- as maintenance from the petitioner, return of the pensionary benefits with 12% interest, compensation with not less than Rs.25 lakhs as damages and to relinquish the one-third right over the 50 cents of landed property in Schedule B of the partition deed of 1997. The aforementioned peti